atreyu

atreyu

Latest Posts

hey, it's clear you're not stupid!
as i recall, i had been tasked to set up a server to be an email server (using postfix and smtpd and cyrus-imapd with auth via LDAP and intefaced with SquirrelMail) and be a chat server (auth with LDAP servied via jabberd). it was fun, but getting LDAP to work w/all that was a bee-yotch. and I never got it to do anything more robust, like allowing remote users to log in and get a shell, etc.

as i recall, i had been tasked to set up a server to be an email server (using postfix and smtpd and cyrus-imapd with auth via LDAP and intefaced with SquirrelMail) and be a chat server (auth with LDAP servied via jabberd). it was fun, but getting LDAP to work w/all that was a bee-yotch. and I never got it to do anything more robust, like allowing remote users to log in and get a shell, etc.

What are your network (TCP/IP) settings? Did you set them up manually, or get them via DHCP from a router (likely the latter).
try this command to see if your DNS has been configured/updated:
[code]cat /etc/resolv.conf[/code]
you also need a route to get to the outside world. show the output of this:
[code]route -n[/code]
also, how about showing your network configuration file contents?
[code]cat /etc/network/interfaces[/code]

[b]marc wrote:[/b]
[quote][b]atreyu wrote:[/b]
[quote]agreed, it is butt-arse hard. I did it in Fedora in a couple hours, though - just find a good tutorial that is made for your distro, e.g.
[url]https://help.ubuntu.com/10.04/serverguide/C/openldap-server.html[/url]
good luck[/quote]
Two hours?
Just to read the documentation it took me way much longer. (although I must admit I really didn't need to read the whole thing to get a basic ldap working ).
Regards[/quote]
i didn't say I understood it, i just installed it... ;)

[b]atreyu wrote:[/b]
[quote]agreed, it is butt-arse hard. I did it in Fedora in a couple hours, though - just find a good tutorial that is made for your distro, e.g.
https://help.ubuntu.com/10.04/serverguide/C/openldap-server.html
good luck

Two hours?

Just to read the documentation it took me way much longer. (although I must admit I really didn't need to read the whole thing to get a basic ldap working ).

Regards[/quote]
i didn't say I understood it, i just installed it... ;)

agreed, it is butt-arse hard. I did it in Fedora in a couple hours, though - just find a good tutorial that is made for your distro, e.g.
[url]https://help.ubuntu.com/10.04/serverguide/C/openldap-server.html[/url]
good luck

If you're absolutely [b]sure[/b] that you know your BAD KERNEL VERSION (e.g., 2.6.36), then you can do this to remove it:
[code]
rm -rf /lib/modules/{BAD_KERNEL_VER}/
rm -f /boot/vmlinuz-{BAD_KERNEL_VER}*
rm -f /boot/initrd-{BAD_KERNEL_VER}*
rm -f /boot/config-{BAD_KERNEL_VER}*
rm -f /boot/System.map-{BAD_KERNEL_VER}*
[/code]
The first command removes the bad kernel's installed modules. The rest of the commands remove the bad kernel image and any initial ramdisk images, system maps, and kernel config files.
You can always reinstall a Fedora-packaged kernel, too. First remove the entry from the RPM database:
[code]rpm -e --justdb kernel (or kernel-PAE) [/code]
Then reinstall it w/yum, e,g:
[code]yum install kernel (or kernel-PAE)[/code]
If you have multiple kernel packages installed, then you can do the above rpm/yum commands, but you have to pass the package version info with it, e.g.: kernel-2.6.36-1.fc10
List all installed kernels with:
[code]rpm -qa kernel (or kernel-PAE)[/code]
Of course, don't do any of this unless you're feeling bold!

i like to use [b]screen[/b] for this type of stuff:
[code]screen -S myScreen[/code]
This will launch the screen program in your same terminal, using whatever label you want ( "myScreen" ). Then at the prompt, launch your app as normal, e.g.:
[code]mp3blaster[/code]
then you can detech from the screen and return to your original terminal by pressing [CTRL]+[A], then [D]
To re-attach to it, run a command to list your currently running screens:
[code]screen -ls[/code]
and look for the output that has your label in it ( "myScreen" ), it will look something like:
[code]
10046.myScreen (Detached)
[/code]
Then reattach to it like this:
[code]screen -r 10046[/code]
Also, I've never used mp3blaster, but can you start it up in the background the old-school way, with an ampersand?
[code]mp3blaster &[/code]

[b]marc wrote:[/b]
[quote]
1st: SL hasn't released a 5.6 version whereas CentOS has.
2nd (and importand one): CentOS support is *longer*
The thing is that one of the main centos developers (Dag) left the project months ago and they've been restructuring
Regards[/quote]
Fortunately, we are solidly entrenched in 5.5 so we're not affected by that.
That definitely hurts losing Dag. I've been benefiting from his hard work for years. I remember reading about his laptop getting stolen and him losing a lot of work.

The thing is that one of the main centos developers (Dag) left the project months ago and they've been restructuring

Regards

Fortunately, we are solidly entrenched in 5.5 so we're not affected by that.
That definitely hurts losing Dag. I've been benefiting from his hard work for years. I remember reading about his laptop getting stolen and him losing a lot of work.

You bring up a good point, Goineasy9. I depend on CentOS a lot and right now, we're happy on 5.x, but if we need to support a RH 6 soon, SL may be the way to go.
This is a good read on the subject (from Brian Proffitt, posted yesterday):
[url]http://www.itworld.com/open-source/166067/hyper-v-shines-spotlight-centos-ready-soon-60-release[/url]

[b]mfillpot wrote:[/b]
[quote]The installed system scripts work that way because there are scripts in rc.local and rc.M stating to check the specific system scripts for executable rights prior to launching them. People cannot just drop executable scripts into the folder and expect them to work, they must first add the correct initialization scripts to the correct files. I consider this a better method than what is used by distros that use the SystemV init method in which any executable script that is placed into a runlevel folder is executed without any further modifications.[/quote]
At least with Fedora/RH-based Linux, system initscripts will not be run by the system unless the proper symlinks have been generated for them for the specific runlevels in which they are supposed to run. These runlevels are defined at the top of each initscript ( e.g., "# chkconfig: - 85 15" ). So you can drop an executable script in /etc/init.d/ but it won't run until you:
a) put the proper "chkconfig" entry at the top of the script
b) run a command to create the symlinks, e.g. "chkconfig --add myService" , or create them manually

The installed system scripts work that way because there are scripts in rc.local and rc.M stating to check the specific system scripts for executable rights prior to launching them. People cannot just drop executable scripts into the folder and expect them to work, they must first add the correct initialization scripts to the correct files. I consider this a better method than what is used by distros that use the SystemV init method in which any executable script that is placed into a runlevel folder is executed without any further modifications.

At least with Fedora/RH-based Linux, system initscripts will not be run by the system unless the proper symlinks have been generated for them for the specific runlevels in which they are supposed to run. These runlevels are defined at the top of each initscript ( e.g., "# chkconfig: - 85 15" ). So you can drop an executable script in /etc/init.d/ but it won't run until you:

a) put the proper "chkconfig" entry at the top of the script
b) run a command to create the symlinks, e.g. "chkconfig --add myService" , or create them manually

[b]linustorvalds wrote:[/b]
[quote]Hai,
Am using slackware,fedora. In both cases , there are two dirs,
1. /usr/src/linux-{Kernerl version}/
2. /lib/modules/{kernel-version}/
what is the difference b/w these two? Actually , these two dir content are totally different, I agree. But, which one is the Kernel source ? :huh:
For writing device drivers, I am using the second one. But, actually, the first one only is in "src" dir .
I am not sure , this question is meaningfull or not, may this is so naive. But , want to know the difference. thank you[/quote]
Just to be clear, in Fedora, the kernel source (packaged in kernel-devel or kernel-PAE-devel) is installed to:
/usr/src/kernels/{kernel_version}/
and like mfillpot said, the kernel modules, etc. are installed to:
/lib/modules/{kernel_version}/
In this directory is a directory named "source" which is actuall a symbolic link to "build" in the same dir and "build" is actually a symbolic link to the above kernel source dir (/usr/src/kernels/{kernel_version}/).

what is the difference b/w these two? Actually , these two dir content are totally different, I agree. But, which one is the Kernel source ? :huh:

For writing device drivers, I am using the second one. But, actually, the first one only is in "src" dir .

I am not sure , this question is meaningfull or not, may this is so naive. But , want to know the difference. thank you

Just to be clear, in Fedora, the kernel source (packaged in kernel-devel or kernel-PAE-devel) is installed to:

/usr/src/kernels/{kernel_version}/

and like mfillpot said, the kernel modules, etc. are installed to:

/lib/modules/{kernel_version}/

In this directory is a directory named "source" which is actuall a symbolic link to "build" in the same dir and "build" is actually a symbolic link to the above kernel source dir (/usr/src/kernels/{kernel_version}/).

Who we are ?

The Linux Foundation is a non-profit consortium dedicated to the growth of Linux.